Talk:Maemo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Linux (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copyedited by Basalisk, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 6 November 2011. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.
 

No soure for informations in section Future/n900[edit]

There is no soure for the information in this section. It talks about an anounment from Nokia, so why isn't that linked? Or any other source? I think that section should be removed. 93.232.65.165 (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Internet Tablet Article[edit]

Three (four if you count the N810 WiMAX Edition) devices is a lot to juggle around when talking about the platform. As it seems likely we can expect more devices in the future, I believe it would be worthwhile to create a "Internet Tablet" article to provide an overview/list of all devices and simplify "the Nokia 770, N800 and Nokia N810 Internet Tablets" to "Nokia Internet Tablets". GeneralAntilles (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the Internet Tablet article. Very stubbish at the moment, will hopefully be expanding later. GeneralAntilles (talk) 05:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Organisation of article structure and Headings.[edit]

I've trawled through various operating sytem articles (Windows, Linux, MacOSX, etc, plus all of the mobile OS articles), in order to try and figure out what categories of information are typically presented, and which subject headings seem to cover all the bases. Unfortunately, most of Wikipedia's operating system articles are very disorganised. But having gone through them, plus a couple of "operating system feature comparison" tables, here's what I've come up with, a sort of "Generic template for operating system articles":

Intro - What category of devices is it aimed at? When was it first made? Who made it? What does it cost--is it free or proprietary?

Usage - How do you use it? What's the GUI like? What does it look like? How does it start up?

Features - What filesystems does it support? What security does it employ? How can it be updated?

Components - What's it made of?

Software - What software can it run (Java, native code, etc)? How do you install it (package management, etc)?

Hardware - What hardware can it run on?

Software Development - How do you make programs for it (SDK, API, Java, native code, etc)?

Version History - How has it changed over the years? What other versions are there? What versions are being developed? What Alternate Desktops are there?

Obviously, as with any form of categorization, some sub-sections could fit equally well under other headings, or could be deserving of their own separate heading. But as a starting point for better organisation--what do you guys think? InternetMeme (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Limiting "software" section to bundled apps[edit]

The Software section currently contains an eclectic mix of different apps which happen to have maemo ports. I don't think this is especially useful, considering that it's basically just an ARM Linux distro. I think this should be limited to apps which are integral to the OS in some way, i.e. bundled with devices. That way it wouldn't just be an arbitrary collection of information. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the current setup is less than ideal, but I do think it's important to cover some of the notable 3rd party software available. Yes, it is basically ARM Linux, but this fact isn't necessarily apparent to everybody reading the article, and everyone who gets that point may not understand the consequences of it.
Part of what I've been working on here has been expanding the other maemo-related articles, and third-party software has been a part of this, so, what if we got a number of the notable third-party application articles up to speed (we'll have to thrash out a list) and did a quick 3 or 4 paragraph overview? GeneralAntilles (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind the odd third-party app so long as there's something notable about it. The important thing is that any third-party software has its notability established by an external party. ScummVM in particular seems to get picked up by reliable third-party news sources as a nifty thing to have on mobile devices all the time, so that might be a good one. GPS apps too. Wesnoth and a half-dozen random email / calendar apps, not so much. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Software notability should be established by multiple external acknowledgement ON the maemo platform ( as opposed to Debian/Linux in general ). Brontide (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Usage section[edit]

I thought that from the perspective of a simple user, the article was somewhat lacking, and so created this section for any person who was curious about Internet Tablet OS; and who might've used a computer or a smartphone before, but otherwise had no idea of what Internet Tablet OS is. Given that I've never seen or used ITOS myself, it's quite possible that I've gotten a few things wrong, so be my guest in correcting any mistakes I've made, guys! (I'm looking at you, GeneralAntilles : ) )

Also, as I mentioned before, I think it'd be nice to have a "Software Development" section, so any people who might potentially be interested in porting/developing applications for Internet Tablet OS can get a quick overview of the options available to them. If that that section were added, I think the article would be fairly complete from all the different perspectives of the various interest groups that are looking it up. InternetMeme (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as development goes, that should be maemo, but, as yet, it's lacking any sort of useful content. I've been trying to prod any and all knowledgeable parties into fleshing it out, but no luck so far. . . . Once that gets up to speed, adding a short paragraph about the SDK and development here with one of those Main Article links would be good. GeneralAntilles (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, clarified the Usage section a bit. Could still use some work (and maybe a focus revamp to discuss OS usage more generally) and a couple more citations, but it seems fine for now. GeneralAntilles (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Page Archival?[edit]

I don't want to do this myself, as I'm directly involved with much of the furor here, but does anybody else think it's time to archive the "vandalism" and related discussions? They're very poorly formated and hard to read right now due to Umptious's insistence on not following the talk page guidelines, and I, personally, feel that the issues have been settled well enough, and it's just getting in the way of productive discussion. GeneralAntilles (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be archived and a new discussion page started. 169.226.69.156 (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Started. I'll do more as the page expands. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the older topics to an archive page brontide (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Template for version history[edit]

It would be great to move the version history table into a template. Then it would be easy to insert the table directly in other maemo articles, like the german one. There's nearly no language specific information in the tabele i think. --Uwe Kaminski (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Improvements Needed[edit]

The style in which the entire article is authored needs to change. I mean the article starts with the usage? dont u think it would be better structure it by giving a overview or history. some links are also missing. Please reply on my talk page JMM|Whatup!? 06:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I figure that most people using Wikipedia are normal folks; not programmers etc. Therefore, the first thing most people are gonna want to know is what maemo is, what it looks like, and what it's like to use, hence placing the "Usage" section at the start. What do you think? InternetMeme (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry meme, for the late reply. I understand what you mean and it is perfectly what we should be doing. Why not make the usage title link into smaller sub headings like What is maemo?, Nokia and Maemo, User Interface, etc maybe adding a few good screen shots? That will make it more structured dont you think? JMM|Whatup!? 11:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

pronunciation[edit]

The pronunciation was ID'd as English, but that isn't possible. Nor would it appear to be Swedish. kwami (talk) 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a made up nonsense word (pwgen). —GeneralAntilles (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I'll delete. kwami (talk) 01:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I deleted an assertion that it stands for "my mobile", since it clearly doesn't. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
So how does one pronounce Maemo? Cigydd (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am the person who came up with the name (check maemo.org: http://talk.maemo.org/showpost.php?p=287259&postcount=25). The explanation is there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.57.36 (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nokia N900 Maemo section[edit]

It would be worth mentioning that we are having a discussion on the Nokia N900 talk page[1] on moving part of the software section[2] here.--Mandor (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Names[edit]

Maemo sounds velvety and sexy, while MeeGoo sounds gooey, sticky and annoyingly high pitched :( --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Try to stay within Wikipedia talk guidlines. This is not a forum to discuss the subject, but to discuss the article. If you really want to carry this discussion on, put it on talk.maemo.org. In any case, the thread will not be very welcome there, either. Xomm 20:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xomm (talkcontribs)


Link "Huge Maemo software directory" - advertising[edit]

The link "Huge Maemo software directory" at the end of the page sounds pretty much like link spam.

I don't want to edit the article myself since I am only "visiting" and don't want to start an edit-war or anything I think it would be better to remove it. The link is not directly relevant for the lemma and Wikipedia is (luckily) not the same as the open directory.

79.171.56.73 (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Logo is outdated[edit]

The Maemo logo in this article is outdated and was only used until Maemo 4.1. --82.208.42.129 (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The new logo can be found at http://maemo.org/legal/terms_of_use/trademarks/logos/ although the page states that it should only be used for the Maemo the Community, not Maemo the OS. See http://maemo.nokia.com/ for the logo on of Nokia's official Maemo page. --91.118.56.81 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre edit[edit]

this edit is weird. It's unsourced and unclear usage of English with "...it is too a part...". Perhaps someone with more understanding of the subject matter could have a look and fix things up. -- ke4roh (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)